“NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HELD THAT EVERY DEATH OF A PATIENT CANNOT, ON THE FACE OF IT, BE CONSIDERED AS DEATH DUE TO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST TO THAT EFFECT”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 358/2013
PHILIPS THOMAS & ORS …. APPELLANT(S)
VS.
DEEN HOSPITAL & ORS …. RESPONDENT(S)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 662/2013
DEEN HOSPITAL & ORS …. APPELLANT(S)
VS.
PHILIPS THOMAS & ORS …. RESPONDENT(S)
In this case a patient aged about 37 years underwent a laparoscopic sterilization operation on 25-09-2006 at a Hospital. The patient was given appropriate counselling by the medical staff regarding modality of sterilization process, its pros and cons, chances of failure, risk of anaesthesia, etc.
The patient was stable post-surgery but developed breathlessness after few minutes. After diagnosis some lung congestion was found by the attending medical team and therefore required medications were given after repeated intervals.
Initially, the condition of patient was stable, but oxygen levels remained between 75% to 80%. Therefore, the patient was transferred to one Hospital and then another, where she was pronounced dead.
A complaint of medical negligence was filed by the legal representative of the patient before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Kerala against the hospital and Doctors.
SCDRC held the Hospital concerned and Doctors liable to jointly pay compensation of Rs 7 lakhs for medical negligence along with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The above case reached to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) as the order was challenged by the complainant for enhancement of above amount awarded for medical negligence by SCDRC. The Hospital and Doctor also challenged the above award of SCDRC for setting it aside.
The issue before NCDRC was to determine the question of whether the death was due to general anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia (‘SA’), administered simultaneously.
It was observed by NCDRC that the track of the injection mark was found entering the spinal cord in the Postmortem Report (PM) the possibility of SA was ruled out as it was held that the injection mark itself was not conclusive as it can be done for diagnostic or therapeutic purpose.
NCDRC relied on the PM report which stated that death was caused due to the combined effect of brain hypoxia (reduction in oxygen supply to the brain tissue) and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (‘ARDS’) (low oxygen in blood leading to lung injury).
As these were rare complications which could occur after the General Anesthesia (‘GA’) and once the patient was under GA there was no necessity to administer SA.
NCDRC while referring to the relevant and established medical practice in the given case held that the findings of the PM report were not convincing to prove administration of SA. Therefore combined administration of general and spinal anaesthesia was ruled out as a cause of death of the patient.
It was stressed by NCDRC while referring to the precedence in law and rulings that “every death of a patient cannot, on the face of it, be considered as death due to medical negligence, unless there is material on record to suggest to that effect”.
It was held that the doctors had effectively managed the complications in the operation theatre and timely referred the patient to the other Hospital for ventilator support.
NCDRC held the findings in PM erroneous and the whole approach of SCDRC unsustainable in law and therefore dismissed the case.
Although the Hospital won the above case as NCDRC did not held a case of medical negligence established against them, the hospital on humanitarian grounds and on its own volition decided to pay the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainants which it had already deposited with SCDRC.
However it was clarified by NCDRC that such an instance of payment by the Hospital above mentioned shall not be construed as a precedent.
***
